Re: [govtrack] Short-term agenda
- --- Joshua Tauberer <tauberer@...> wrote:
> First, a blurb in the New York Times about GovTrackCongrats. That's excellent news. I'm happy to see
> is supposed to appear one of these days.
mainstream media catching up with what's happening.
> Hopefully in the next few weeks there will be a newIs this the govshare that I've been seeing random
> website that will be
> a place for a community about this to develop.
> Once the website is up,I don't know much about RDF (yet) but I'd like to be
> I'm going to start bringing in other people
> interested in hacking out an
> RDF data model for political information, and then
> we'll start to decide
> on the specifics of the data model (e.g. how to
> assign IDs to politicians).
on that list of ppl.
> That'll be pretty neat.Who are you kiddin, that'll be f___in AWESOME!
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
- I also wanted to add that I think many people
(particularly those currently serving as elected
officials) may feel threatened by govtrack and its
spawn. Govtrack will bring a shift in the way
government operates (from ignorant to informed
populus). I think it's important to stay within the
boundaries of the existing system until we have enough
support and interest to push those boundaries in the
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
- Scott Beardsley wrote:
>>You need to see a specific "I allow you to doI think it's pretty fair. Before the ~1979 changes to copyright law,
>>this" message to use anything.
> I think this is very sad but also very true.
you had to pay a fee and formally register works with the goverment to
obtain a copyright, which was a somewhat prohibitive process if you're
an individual and not a big publisher. So, the fact that everything is
automatically copyrighted puts us on the same playing field as the big
corporations. There are other aspects of copyright law that I'd agree
are sad but true...
> It'd be interesting to know what "signifiacntlyNo, but the law is generally vague about this. The only way to know if
> altered" really is... Can i just change the case of a
> few words?
it's a legitimate action is if you're sued and ultimately found not
guilty. Not a great way to find out.
>>If the source is copyrighted, I wouldExcept legislation (I'll go looking for some precedent about this at
>>avoid doing anything with it without permission.
> I agree. So we have to find the grant into PD for all
> our sources.
some point, but I'm pretty sure it's already been tested in court) and
the status of legislation (which are facts and, IMO, not copyrightable
in the first place). For these things, I really wouldn't worry about
it. If you're gathering other types of data, it's more of a concern.
(Are you gathering other things?)
> Imagine ten years down theAgreed.
> line with a huge repo of data and no idea what's legal
> and what's not.
> So basically we are obligated to determine theMost definitely.
> licensing status of the content we host.
>>First, a blurb in the New York Times about GovTrackWell, hold the congrats till we actually see it in print. :)
>>> is supposed to appear one of these days.
> Congrats. That's excellent news. I'm happy to see
> mainstream media catching up with what's happening.
>>Hopefully in the next few weeks there will be a newIn the preliminary RDF files. That was my original idea, but that may
>>> website that will be
>>> a place for a community about this to develop.
> Is this the govshare that I've been seeing random
not pan out. We'll see.
> I also wanted to add that I think many peopleExcellent! :)
> (particularly those currently serving as elected
> officials) may feel threatened by govtrack and its
- Joshua Tauberer
** Nothing Unreal Exists **